"Maybe this is why a revolution in this sense will not happen in a democracy"
If democracy is the base state of a country, then we would long ago have all become democracies. Clearly that is not the case, since many dictatorships exist throughout the world.
George Orwell's Animal Farm is a very insightful piece of work you might like to read:
http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/animf.htm
Its basically the story of how Russian went from Tzars to Democracy to Dictatorship, transposed into Animals on a farm.
The pigs SLOWLY amass power and control, the rest of the Animals SLOWLY lose power and control, and the balance shifts until the pigs attack the Farmer and depose him. A SLOW bypassing of Judicial review, a SLOW move to gain more control is how the US democracy will die, but its still a revolution, just in slow-mo.
"After all the H1B's end, a lot of people will have to head back to India. "
H1Bs were brought in mostly by multi-nationals who have offices in India and China. Why train a new person to replace the H1B in America, when you can hire the same H1B for much less abroad already trained!?
"Copyright violation was always, for more than two hundred years of American history, a CIVIL violation, not a CRIMINAL one."
Only for downloaders is it a criminal offence. Ripping off copyrighted songs and incorporating them into your own, IF YOU ARE A RECORD PRODUCER, is still a civil matter.
Nice? If the music is sent via MTV and recorded its fair use and perfectly legal. If its send via DSL and recorded its a felony with a long sentence. Even though the record companies give the product free (with promotional video) to MTV to promote the artists.
Yeh, Googles great an' all, but that doesn't mean it can't be better.
All the main keywords come up with heavily text focussed sites because text is what Google can index properly. They need to be better at rating image sites and annimation sites.
Then there's the 'multi-domain' spamming - sites set up across multiple domains pretending to be different but all being basically the same, simply for the link bonus.
If Google detects that several domains are really the same site, then it should treat all links between the sites as internal links in a single site, and all the sites corresponding pages should get the same PR value, since they *are* the same page, just on different domains.
At the moment it seems to assign the PR to one of the sites and drop the PR on the others. I can understand that they don't want a big cluster of sites dominating the index, but shouldn't it simply treat the sites as one great big site and return only 2 entries from the whole group?
Also how about using geography & time to detect when weighting the value of a link?
Suppose 2 DNS entries are registered at roughly the same time by the same person in the same address those sites are more likely to be the same site so links between them should have a lower rating.
Now suppose 2 sites are registered by different people, but in the same town. Links between those two sites should be downgraded slightly, since there is a slight probability of collusion.
Same with domains that cross link at and were created at the same time but in different locations by different people. Much more likely that those people would be looking to link exchange and so the links would be less about content and more about exchange.
So the maximum weight would be given to a link that came later on as a site became more popular, from a site that was registered at a different time from a different person in a different location. In this case the chance of collusion would be very low so the link could be trusted more - its much more likely to be done for content reasons.
"So your dictator couldn't endlessly apeal, actually he had only two attempts (maximum) and that's it."
What I'm trying to do by these questions is determine exactly why you believe a system that allows the prosecution to try the case 3 times is somehow compatible with a Human Right that says it can be tried once.
You have made two arguments here:
1. That its not really 3 times, its one 'long' time.
To that, I point out that the first 'innocent' verdict would have stood without a further legal process, therefore it is aquittal and hence it was a trial.
2. That it is OK because its only 3 appeals maximum. (One long trial or 3? You've weakened your own argument by saying this).
To this I would point out that Norway signed up to a human right that says "not twice". i.e. Once is OK, twice is not.
Take a look at what they are doing to Jon, he wrote a program. There is no reason to believe that writing a DVD decoder was or is illegal. Since similar code must be in every DVD player, yet nobody is trying to arrest Sony programmers!
They are trying him on 'theft' charges. Theft is taking someones property with the aim of depriving them of it.
So what the prosecutor is doing here is twisting a law in an attempt to prosecute him. Once might be misguided, but trying to twist this law TWICE?
To me this is no different from a dictatorship trying an innocent person on some trumped up charge. He has been found innocent once, Norway signed up to a Human Right law in 1999 that says it promised not to try someone twice - yet here it is trying someone on a trumped up charge twice.
How is this different from any dictatorship retrying a person that already been declared innocent?
"The "main trust" of the law is that a defendant should only be subjected to a limited prosecution."
Its very explicit in how it defines "limited", it defines it as "NOT TWICE". Thats very clear. Once is OK, twice is not.
" under your interpretation it would require major restructuring of the legal systems in a large number of the signatory countries, which simply isn't likely"
It wouldn't require *any* change, the extra prosecutions simply wouldn't be brought.
For an example of how easy it is to change the laws, look at Surinda Singh (?), prior to that EU Court Case, EU law didn't apply to an EU citizen in their own countries. After that judgement, it applied to EU citizens who had used their rights in another EU country. One judgement, total change of rights completely across Europe.
"Whether that is handled by one, two or three courts (or more for that matter) is vitally different from allowing prosecution to go on and on without limit. It's the latter that the paragraph in question is meant to protect against. "
The Human Right is very clearly 'once', taking Jon to court again on the same evidence in the same state for the same offence is clearly the sort of abuse you refer to in the last sentence.
You make the distinction between unlimited and limited, but the Human right says "not twice", not 'unlimited and limited'
"Further, the EU is working on "Corpus Juris" a common criminal code for the entire EU"
Its your and my EU too, you are entitled to your say too, the EU is always very helpful and I frequently seek their help as I work and live in different EU countries. If you don't like them trying to remove this human right, then you should let the Commission know.
"That would require you to set up an almost infinite number of levels of courts. The appeal here is for a higher instance to look at the case and see if it was done properly"
So you're argument is that its the *number* of times it goes to court that makes it acceptable. Norway being 3 max?
So are we arguing over how many times is OK, if we are, a Human Right that says that "Right not to be tried or punished twice" Means the limit is 1 clearly.
"So this is consistent with the main argument for the ne bis in idem rule (a.k.a. double jeopardy): to protect against the government abusing their power and resources by continuously starting a new prosecution in the same case."
But the rule is only that they have to *decide* to appeal within those two weeks, not that appeal has to be over within two weeks.
Apply the 'dictator' test. If a dictator made a rule that said "I can appeal any innocent verdict within 2 weeks", then he could simply endlessly appeal every innocent verdict until he gets a guilty. Exactly the type of "abusing their power and resources by continuously starting a new prosecution in the same case" you argued it doesn't allow.
"in norway, sweden (and prolly denmark, and maybe lots of other european countries) you're not formally convicted (or acquitted) before both sides have decided not to appeal "
But the "innocent" verdict would have stood if no action was taken to prolong it. Therefore it was a valid verdict. Therefore its two trials because he could be found innocent at the first one and guilty at the second.
Using your argument, you could make a law in some third world dictatorship saying that someone isn't innocent until the state decides to stop appealing the case.
But that would be the exact opposite of "right not to be tried twice". It would be the same principle and it would make a complete mockery of Article 50. Therefore that could never have been the point of Article 50. There Norways "not really innocent until state stops apealing" is not consistent with Article 50.
See my comments under the Swedish law comment. You're arguing that a word in the text of the law allows the main thrust of the law to be reversed.
I don't think that would stand. After all what they've agreed to is "Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence".
And however you word it, your arguing that he can be tried twice (even though its called an 'appeal' its a trial by any other name since he can be found guilty for something that he has already been found innocent of).
Since this is a 1999 adoption of human rights laws, it won't have been tested properly in Norway. So we couldn't settle this unless it was tested.
So how about the court of public opinion instead? I believe that if I argue this, it sounds right and fair and I can win in that court.
I testify to the court of public opinion, that this is an abuse of human rights, that it is in effect a "trial or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence" and therefore a breach of human rights legislation that Norway has signed up for.
I think this is a malicious attempt by the MPAA to apply Theft laws as a retrospective DMCA.
"If it works as the Swedish court (and the legal systems are pretty close), "
You raise an interesting point, since Sweden is in the EU and hence European Court is the ultimate court.
Take a look at this clause: "Article 50 Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence"
The title says it clear as day. The AC higher up picked on the word 'finally' in the detail text and argued that justifies a process that allows 'criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence'.
No matter how you dress up the wording, Jon is being tried twice for the same crime here. He was aquitted the first time, he could be convicted the second time, and the intention of that clause is clear as day: "Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence"
So if Sweden has the same rules, a test case would be possible and we could see if a country can indeed use the 'finally' to prosecute twice, or not.
Has there been a challenge to the EU court on this already for Sweden?
Here's the current wording of this EU Human Rights Legislation:
"Article 50 Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence
No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law."
I.e. the "and penal procedure of that State" has gone. Not least because every bongo bongo land country used it as a loophole.
So its an abuse of human rights, lobby your EU rep, who now insist on Human Rights as part of all their trade agreements.
Its the best way to counter MPAA lobbying thats basically trying to twist a 'theft' law into a retrospective DMCA.
------------ 1999-05-21 NOR-1999-L-53741 Act (No. 30 of 1999) to strengthen the position of human rights in Norwegian law (Human Rights Act). Contains six sections whereby the following international human rights instruments are given force of national law to the extent that they are considered as binding on Norway: the European Council's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, its Protocol of November 1950, its Protocols Nos. 4 (securing certain other rights and freedoms), 6 (abolition of death penalty), and 7 (furthering certain human rights and freedoms);
Article 4 - Right not to be tried or punished twice
So they adopted it into Norwegian law as part of human rights legislation. Needs a lawyer to check it out, but what they're doing isn't just unethical and a breach of human rights. ITS NOT LEGAL EVEN IN NORWAY.
Just in case we forget, toner is just black plastic ground up to form a powder.
Its not even Digital! (As in not even related to the *Digital* Millenium Copyright Act), but Lexmark slapped in a chip so they could make use of the DMCA to protect their boxes of overpriced ground up black plastic.
"During the late 70's and early 80's there were a lot of independent developers that programmed 'clones' of popular arcade games for home computer/hobbyist systems"
There is a limit on how long after the fact you can sue someone. I believe its 6 years after the violation for the UK.
These games date from twenty years ago, so its a little late in the day.
Plus its not dilution of copyright, at best its a trademark infringement. The code from these games is not the same code, you might argue that a monkey throwing barrels is the same as Donkey Kong throwing barrels but the time to argue that was twenty years ago when it was fresh in everyone's minds.
Now nobody can remember if the original 'claimed' trademark holder is really the same as the real trademark holder. Its worth remembering that just because a large company claims it has rights to these products doesn't mean its true. The video game companies themselves were notorious for making clones of the competitors products.
"Why are copyright owners tracking down such things which wouldn't get pennies nowadays (they were selling off the old cassettes for 10p long ago)."
Its about reducing choice, all this free stuff on the internet make it harder to sell new games. If people spend their time playing this old stuff, they won't want to fork over $50=$70 buying the latest and greatest.
So organisations like this go around trying to wipe out these sites. of course its not about copyright violation, no ZX pectrum game designer is paying these people to do this. No, its about control of market, the newer game companies are paying this company.
Are absolutely fine by me. Its abandonware, I wrote them when I was a spoilt brat and I was really please to see a C64 enthusiast take them and put them on the net. (Just wish they were better games, I can write better than this now, honest!)
He didn't run a warez site, he ran a modchip site. He wasn't accused of breach of copyright, he was accused of selling devices which *might* be used to breach copyright.
Scott Hazlegrove is the Microsoft lobbyist they are talking about.
Here is Scott Hazlegrove, "environmental policy director with the Association of Washington Business" arguing against stepped penalties for river poluters, instead he wants a nice flat fee (which would favour the bigger poluters over the little ones).
"I am writing to express my thanks and appreciation for the first decently fitting ski boots I have ever worn.", "I wouldn't think of buying a pair of boots anywhere else."
See, mod chips to make backup CDs are necessary for fair use. Sony and Microsoft claim the disks last forever, but here we have a story that says otherwise.
"This is most likely NOT illegal under the EU directive/UK laws..when you click "I agree" it is giving consent for them to a) transfer your information to a non-EU country and b) use the information as stated in their privacy policy."
No, this is simply not true. You cannot give companies an opt-out of EU rules, those rules are applied by the Governments enforcing their own versions of those EU rules directly against a company. *You* do not come into the loop in law enforcement.
"Where you store the data is irrelevant " No, not under EU rules. For information collected on an EU citizen it must stay in the EU, or only be transfered to a country that has similar privacy laws & regime.
The US doesn't have privacy laws, so US businesses were going to be kicked out of EU. So US then negotiated an opt-out for US businesses. Basically a US business can transfer the information to the US, *IF* that company has privacy rules which conform to EU standards.
Paypal are in deep shit, their European money comes from European banks and credit card money can all be stopped if the EU citizens complain to their governments.
"They don't store the data in the UK, and so are not bound by the Data Protection act"
To do business in the EU they either have to store the data in the EU and conform to EU privacy rules, or they can opt out under the US-EU opt out. The opt-out is only valid for companies whose privacy policies in the US conform the EU standards of privacy.
Since eBay do not provide privacy in the US at all, they cannot use the US-EU opt out.
That leaves them one option, protect the data from EU customers and don't let it leave the EU.
eBay have sites in Europe, even if those sites are not physically in the EU, they get paid by credit card and bank transfer and that money stream can be switched off.
So file your complaints in all EU countries, because all of them have some form of Privacy legislation on the books.
Slashdot Mirror
"Maybe this is why a revolution in this sense will not happen in a democracy"
If democracy is the base state of a country, then we would long ago have all become democracies. Clearly that is not the case, since many dictatorships exist throughout the world.
George Orwell's Animal Farm is a very insightful piece of work you might like to read:
http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/animf.htm
Its basically the story of how Russian went from Tzars to Democracy to Dictatorship, transposed into Animals on a farm.
The pigs SLOWLY amass power and control, the rest of the Animals SLOWLY lose power and control, and the balance shifts until the pigs attack the Farmer and depose him.
A SLOW bypassing of Judicial review, a SLOW move to gain more control is how the US democracy will die, but its still a revolution, just in slow-mo.
"After all the H1B's end, a lot of people will have to head back to India. "
H1Bs were brought in mostly by multi-nationals who have offices in India and China.
Why train a new person to replace the H1B in America, when you can hire the same H1B for much less abroad already trained!?
"Copyright violation was always, for more than two hundred years of American history, a CIVIL violation, not a CRIMINAL one."
Only for downloaders is it a criminal offence. Ripping off copyrighted songs and incorporating them into your own, IF YOU ARE A RECORD PRODUCER, is still a civil matter.
Nice? If the music is sent via MTV and recorded its fair use and perfectly legal. If its send via DSL and recorded its a felony with a long sentence. Even though the record companies give the product free (with promotional video) to MTV to promote the artists.
Yeh, Googles great an' all, but that doesn't mean it can't be better.
All the main keywords come up with heavily text focussed sites because text is what Google can index properly. They need to be better at rating image sites and annimation sites.
Then there's the 'multi-domain' spamming - sites set up across multiple domains pretending to be different but all being basically the same, simply for the link bonus.
If Google detects that several domains are really the same site, then it should treat all links between the sites as internal links in a single site, and all the sites corresponding pages should get the same PR value, since they *are* the same page, just on different domains.
At the moment it seems to assign the PR to one of the sites and drop the PR on the others. I can understand that they don't want a big cluster of sites dominating the index, but shouldn't it simply treat the sites as one great big site and return only 2 entries from the whole group?
Also how about using geography & time to detect when weighting the value of a link?
Suppose 2 DNS entries are registered at roughly the same time by the same person in the same address those sites are more likely to be the same site so links between them should have a lower rating.
Now suppose 2 sites are registered by different people, but in the same town. Links between those two sites should be downgraded slightly, since there is a slight probability of collusion.
Same with domains that cross link at and were created at the same time but in different locations by different people. Much more likely that those people would be looking to link exchange and so the links would be less about content and more about exchange.
So the maximum weight would be given to a link that came later on as a site became more popular, from a site that was registered at a different time from a different person in a different location. In this case the chance of collusion would be very low so the link could be trusted more - its much more likely to be done for content reasons.
Also the colours look a lot better.
Without a backlight, black really is black. So white seems very much brighter.
They also make a much wider range of colours than LCD , so you get much brighter more realistic colour gamut.
"So your dictator couldn't endlessly apeal, actually he had only two attempts (maximum) and that's it."
What I'm trying to do by these questions is determine exactly why you believe a system that allows the prosecution to try the case 3 times is somehow compatible with a Human Right that says it can be tried once.
You have made two arguments here:
1. That its not really 3 times, its one 'long' time.
To that, I point out that the first 'innocent' verdict would have stood without a further legal process, therefore it is aquittal and hence it was a trial.
2. That it is OK because its only 3 appeals maximum. (One long trial or 3? You've weakened your own argument by saying this).
To this I would point out that Norway signed up to a human right that says "not twice". i.e. Once is OK, twice is not.
Take a look at what they are doing to Jon, he wrote a program. There is no reason to believe that writing a DVD decoder was or is illegal. Since similar code must be in every DVD player, yet nobody is trying to arrest Sony programmers!
They are trying him on 'theft' charges. Theft is taking someones property with the aim of depriving them of it.
So what the prosecutor is doing here is twisting a law in an attempt to prosecute him. Once might be misguided, but trying to twist this law TWICE?
To me this is no different from a dictatorship trying an innocent person on some trumped up charge. He has been found innocent once, Norway signed up to a Human Right law in 1999 that says it promised not to try someone twice - yet here it is trying someone on a trumped up charge twice.
How is this different from any dictatorship retrying a person that already been declared innocent?
"The "main trust" of the law is that a defendant should only be subjected to a limited prosecution."
Its very explicit in how it defines "limited", it defines it as "NOT TWICE". Thats very clear. Once is OK, twice is not.
" under your interpretation it would require major restructuring of the legal systems in a large number of the signatory countries, which simply isn't likely"
It wouldn't require *any* change, the extra prosecutions simply wouldn't be brought.
For an example of how easy it is to change the laws, look at Surinda Singh (?), prior to that EU Court Case, EU law didn't apply to an EU citizen in their own countries. After that judgement, it applied to EU citizens who had used their rights in another EU country.
One judgement, total change of rights completely across Europe.
"Whether that is handled by one, two or three courts (or more for that matter) is vitally different from allowing prosecution to go on and on without limit. It's the latter that the paragraph in question is meant to protect against. "
The Human Right is very clearly 'once', taking Jon to court again on the same evidence in the same state for the same offence is clearly the sort of abuse you refer to in the last sentence.
You make the distinction between unlimited and limited, but the Human right says "not twice", not 'unlimited and limited'
"Further, the EU is working on "Corpus Juris" a common criminal code for the entire EU"
Its your and my EU too, you are entitled to your say too, the EU is always very helpful and I frequently seek their help as I work and live in different EU countries. If you don't like them trying to remove this human right, then you should let the Commission know.
"That would require you to set up an almost infinite number of levels of courts. The appeal here is for a higher instance to look at the case and see if it was done properly"
So you're argument is that its the *number* of times it goes to court that makes it acceptable. Norway being 3 max?
So are we arguing over how many times is OK, if we are, a Human Right that says that "Right not to be tried or punished twice"
Means the limit is 1 clearly.
"So this is consistent with the main argument for the ne bis in idem rule (a.k.a. double jeopardy): to protect against the government abusing their power and resources by continuously starting a new prosecution in the same case."
But the rule is only that they have to *decide* to appeal within those two weeks, not that appeal has to be over within two weeks.
Apply the 'dictator' test. If a dictator made a rule that said "I can appeal any innocent verdict within 2 weeks", then he could simply endlessly appeal every innocent verdict until he gets a guilty. Exactly the type of "abusing their power and resources by continuously starting a new prosecution in the same case" you argued it doesn't allow.
"in norway, sweden (and prolly denmark, and maybe lots of other european countries) you're not formally convicted (or acquitted) before both sides have decided not to appeal "
But the "innocent" verdict would have stood if no action was taken to prolong it. Therefore it was a valid verdict.
Therefore its two trials because he could be found innocent at the first one and guilty at the second.
Using your argument, you could make a law in some third world dictatorship saying that someone isn't innocent until the state decides to stop appealing the case.
But that would be the exact opposite of "right not to be tried twice". It would be the same principle and it would make a complete mockery of Article 50.
Therefore that could never have been the point of Article 50. There Norways "not really innocent until state stops apealing" is not consistent with Article 50.
"...finally.. "
See my comments under the Swedish law comment. You're arguing that a word in the text of the law allows the main thrust of the law to be reversed.
I don't think that would stand. After all what they've agreed to is "Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence".
And however you word it, your arguing that he can be tried twice (even though its called an 'appeal' its a trial by any other name since he can be found guilty for something that he has already been found innocent of).
Since this is a 1999 adoption of human rights laws, it won't have been tested properly in Norway. So we couldn't settle this unless it was tested.
So how about the court of public opinion instead? I believe that if I argue this, it sounds right and fair and I can win in that court.
I testify to the court of public opinion, that this is an abuse of human rights, that it is in effect a "trial or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence" and therefore a breach of human rights legislation that Norway has signed up for.
I think this is a malicious attempt by the MPAA to apply Theft laws as a retrospective DMCA.
Over to you to argue your side.
"If it works as the Swedish court (and the legal systems are pretty close), "
You raise an interesting point, since Sweden is in the EU and hence European Court is the ultimate court.
Take a look at this clause:
"Article 50
Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence"
The title says it clear as day. The AC higher up picked on the word 'finally' in the detail text and argued that justifies a process that allows 'criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence'.
No matter how you dress up the wording, Jon is being tried twice for the same crime here. He was aquitted the first time, he could be convicted the second time, and the intention of that clause is clear as day:
"Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence"
So if Sweden has the same rules, a test case would be possible and we could see if a country can indeed use the 'finally' to prosecute twice, or not.
Has there been a challenge to the EU court on this already for Sweden?
Here's the current wording of this EU Human Rights Legislation:
"Article 50
Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence
No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law."
I.e. the "and penal procedure of that State" has gone. Not least because every bongo bongo land country used it as a loophole.
So its an abuse of human rights, lobby your EU rep, who now insist on Human Rights as part of all their trade agreements.
Its the best way to counter MPAA lobbying thats basically trying to twist a 'theft' law into a retrospective DMCA.
Its not legal in Norway.
g =E &doc=query&ctry=NOR&llx=02
t ml /117.htm
------------
1999-05-21 NOR-1999-L-53741
Act (No. 30 of 1999) to strengthen the position of human rights in Norwegian law (Human Rights Act).
Contains six sections whereby the following international human rights instruments are given force of national law to the extent that they are considered as binding on Norway: the European Council's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, its Protocol of November 1950, its Protocols Nos. 4 (securing certain other rights and freedoms), 6 (abolition of death penalty), and 7 (furthering certain human rights and freedoms);
http://natlex.ilo.org/Scripts/natlexcgi.exe?lan
-----------
Protocol 7 from November 1950 is here:
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/Treaties/h
Article 4 - Right not to be tried or punished twice
So they adopted it into Norwegian law as part of human rights legislation.
Needs a lawyer to check it out, but what they're doing isn't just unethical and a breach of human rights. ITS NOT LEGAL EVEN IN NORWAY.
Just in case we forget, toner is just black plastic ground up to form a powder.
Its not even Digital! (As in not even related to the *Digital* Millenium Copyright Act), but Lexmark slapped in a chip so they could make use of the DMCA to protect their boxes of overpriced ground up black plastic.
"Never did finish it though."
Neither did I, the endings crap, download Manic Miner instead, this ZxSpec site has the original!
"During the late 70's and early 80's there were a lot of independent developers that programmed 'clones' of popular arcade games for home computer/hobbyist systems"
There is a limit on how long after the fact you can sue someone. I believe its 6 years after the violation for the UK.
These games date from twenty years ago, so its a little late in the day.
Plus its not dilution of copyright, at best its a trademark infringement. The code from these games is not the same code, you might argue that a monkey throwing barrels is the same as Donkey Kong throwing barrels but the time to argue that was twenty years ago when it was fresh in everyone's minds.
Now nobody can remember if the original 'claimed' trademark holder is really the same as the real trademark holder. Its worth remembering that just because a large company claims it has rights to these products doesn't mean its true. The video game companies themselves were notorious for making clones of the competitors products.
"Why are copyright owners tracking down such things which wouldn't get pennies nowadays (they were selling off the old cassettes for 10p long ago)."
Its about reducing choice, all this free stuff on the internet make it harder to sell new games. If people spend their time playing this old stuff, they won't want to fork over $50=$70 buying the latest and greatest.
So organisations like this go around trying to wipe out these sites. of course its not about copyright violation, no ZX pectrum game designer is paying these people to do this. No, its about control of market, the newer game companies are paying this company.
For the record, these games:
http://c64.users2.50megs.com/Are absolutely fine by me. Its abandonware, I wrote them when I was a spoilt brat and I was really please to see a C64 enthusiast take them and put them on the net. (Just wish they were better games, I can write better than this now, honest!)
"You run a warez site, you'll get screwed."
He didn't run a warez site, he ran a modchip site. He wasn't accused of breach of copyright, he was accused of selling devices which *might* be used to breach copyright.
Scott Hazlegrove is the Microsoft lobbyist they are talking about.
Here is Scott Hazlegrove, "environmental policy director with the Association of Washington Business" arguing against stepped penalties for river poluters, instead he wants a nice flat fee (which would favour the bigger poluters over the little ones).
http://www.crcwater.org/fish/npfish35.html
Here he is as a Surefoot customer:
"I am writing to express my thanks and appreciation for the first decently fitting ski boots I have ever worn.", "I wouldn't think of buying a pair of boots anywhere else."http://www.surefoot.com/surefoot_-_customer_letter s.html
Here he is at his lobbying firm (this page has disappeared from the site, but google still has it):
The google cache link
"Consoles Data Loss Victims"
See, mod chips to make backup CDs are necessary for fair use. Sony and Microsoft claim the disks last forever, but here we have a story that says otherwise.
Girls like it too
"This is most likely NOT illegal under the EU directive/UK laws..when you click "I agree" it is giving consent for them to a) transfer your information to a non-EU country and b) use the information as stated in their privacy policy."
No, this is simply not true. You cannot give companies an opt-out of EU rules, those rules are applied by the Governments enforcing their own versions of those EU rules directly against a company. *You* do not come into the loop in law enforcement.
"Where you store the data is irrelevant "
No, not under EU rules. For information collected on an EU citizen it must stay in the EU, or only be transfered to a country that has similar privacy laws & regime.
The US doesn't have privacy laws, so US businesses were going to be kicked out of EU.
So US then negotiated an opt-out for US businesses.
Basically a US business can transfer the information to the US, *IF* that company has privacy rules which conform to EU standards.
Paypal are in deep shit, their European money comes from European banks and credit card money can all be stopped if the EU citizens complain to their governments.
"They don't store the data in the UK, and so are not bound by the Data Protection act"
To do business in the EU they either have to store the data in the EU and conform to EU privacy rules, or they can opt out under the US-EU opt out. The opt-out is only valid for companies whose privacy policies in the US conform the EU standards of privacy.
Since eBay do not provide privacy in the US at all, they cannot use the US-EU opt out.
That leaves them one option, protect the data from EU customers and don't let it leave the EU.
eBay have sites in Europe, even if those sites are not physically in the EU, they get paid by credit card and bank transfer and that money stream can be switched off.
So file your complaints in all EU countries, because all of them have some form of Privacy legislation on the books.